Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files within 24 hours. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

“If I was” vs. “If I were”

“If I was the Prime Minister. ...” said Ed Miliband, British Labour party leader, today, Sunday 24th September 2011. Is this not how to phrase it if it remains a possibility that he was once Prime Minister, or if he is not sure if he was, or is reluctant to admit it?

“If I were the Prime Minister, ...”, using the subjunctive mood of the verb, would suggest that he is not Prime minister but is about to tell us what he would do if he were the PM.
If the subjunctive is now defunct in UK Labour politics, as I suspect, how did he continue to tell us what he would have done, if he were the PM, without using the subjunctive? “if I was the PM, I ~~~~~ ???” It cannot be done.

Submit Your Comment

Comments

Another example of how "common usage" leads to deterioration and debasement of the language.Anyone with an education from a decent UK school will tell you that of course the correct form is "If I were". The classic example is the song "If I were a rich man" from the musical "Fiddler on the Roof".Unfortunately, because of "common usage", it appears that "If I was" is now acceptable.A pox upon it.

@goofyThe difference lies in the use of subjunctive vs indicative as stated by Brus.Perhaps a better example is:-"If I was a hopeless cad, I apologize.""If I were a hopeless cad, I would never apologize."

I don't think it needs an education in a decent UK school, just a decent school - German and Danish friends do not get this wrong when speaking in English, because they have been taught the English version of their own languages' subjunctive forms for use in closed conditional clauses (putting forward an impossible hypothesis), such as "if I were you". I cannot imagine having heard 'if I was ...' used by anyone using English as a second language. Americans get this one right too. It seems almost a deliberate ploy to suggest such things as "if I was you" when used by a British public figure, with what motive? The answer is evident.

Good one, "I wish I were .....". Now, why is it "I thought I was ...." but "I wish I were ...". One is for fact, the other for non-fact. (Or "counterfactual" to cite a contributor.)+Students of English as a second language are keen to learn these details, others treat them as an affront. Shame on the others, I say!

OK, I found idiolect on Google dictionary, and its definition shows that "my idiolect" means that you personally choose to say "If I was ..." for 'counterfactual'. That does not mean you should.

I still maintain that to say "If I was the prime minister" means you can't remember if you were, or don't want to own up to it. To say "If I was there" allows the possibility that you were indeed there.

Good one, "I wish I were .....". Now, why is it "I thought I was ...." but "I wish I were ...". One is for fact, the other for non-fact. (Or "counterfactual" to cite a contributor.)+Students of English as a second language are keen to learn these details, others treat them as an affront. Shame on the others, I say!

"I think I am..." v "I wish I were ...", This time the verb in the main clause (wish/think) are in the present tense. - uh, this time the explanation is harder: both think/wish introduce maybe yes or no subordinate clauses. So why not "I wish I am" or "I think I were"? Even more clearly, here the wishing suggests doubt (subjunctive 'I were') and the thinking suggests certainty (indicative 'I am').

I do not know which writers have been using 'was' and 'were' interchangeable (sic) for all those 300 years, but I like your neologism "ideolect", which my dictionary, like me, is too old to include. So too "counterfactual". I shall check them on Google in a few minutes. They have never seen the light of day in any of my language lessons, nor in the textbooks I have used.Your point about verbs other than 'be' is well taken. The problem with the English subjunctive is that its conjugation is so much like that of the past indicative, it is really only with the rare irregular verbs such as 'be' that its different form is apparent. As it is apparent it is easy to notice it, learn it and use it, so use it!"If I was a rich man", as quoted by a contributor, sounds obviously plain wrong because it is plain wrong. English dialect maybe, but it is not standard English.

Perfect PedantIt seems to me that "if I was" can only lead to ambiguity if it is used in the same context as "if I were". If my two sentences really do have different meanings, then there is room for confusion, and I'd like to know exactly what the difference is.

Your sentence "If I was a hopeless cad, I apologize" refers to a past event, so it's not the same context as my examples.

Would you ever use "if I was" in exactly the same context as "if I were"? Would you say this:"If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize."

I am interested in correct usage, but I find it more useful to take "correct" to mean "how good writers actually write", not "how someone thinks I should write". Good writers use "if I was" and "if I were" interchangeably. I have provided a link to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which discusses the evidence in detail.

But other people have continued to assert that "if I was" is wrong, simply because they say so. I don't find assertions without evidence very convincing.

Good one, "I wish I were .....". Now, why is it "I thought I was ...." but "I wish I were ...". One is for fact, the other for non-fact. (Or "counterfactual" to cite a contributor.)+Students of English as a second language are keen to learn these details, others treat them as an affront. Shame on the others, I say!

Wow, what a lot of issues to address! So I'll start with the easiest ones.@Willy wonka, much as as I like chocolate, I can't let you get away with this one - "If I lived in Paris, I would visit the Eiffel Tower.", is a perfectly standard example of what is known in EFL/ESL circles as a second conditional. Just google 'Second conditional'.

@Valentina. I don't think anybody was accusing you of being pedantic for using 'were', nor do any of us deny that 'were' is correct. It's just that some of us think that 'was' for unreal conditions is just as correct, at least in normal spoken English. Most of us use formal English very rarely.

Would the Egyptian tourist authority campaign of a couple of years ago really have used, "I wish I was in Egypt" as their slogan if it was commonly perceived to be such bad grammar. (Check it on YouTube)

You say you were taught at International House in the 70s, which means your teachers probably went to school in the 60s, as I did. At that time the teaching of prescriptive grammar was the norm in British schools, but that hasn't been true for the last forty years or so. If you doubt me, read David Crystal's 'The Stories of English'.

I was taught a lot of things then that would just get you funny looks today, such as obligatory 'may' for permission, 'to whom should I give this book', etc. British English has changed a lot since those days. And got a lot less formal.

For what it's worth, in modern EFL, we teach both forms, telling the students about the different registers, and letting them decide for themselves.

@mediator - "Anyone who was educated in a British senior secondary school would definitely disagree with you." - 'you're turning me schizophrenic, as apparently I have to disagree with myself - except I don't know exactly what you're talking about, as I've never heard this expression used in Britain, nor have my (British) colleagues, and Google hasn't been much help either, although the term does seem to be used in India. Do you mean a secondary school for seniors, or some supposedly superior school?

Anyway Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, who are all on record as saying 'If I was prime minister ...' all have pretty impeccable educational backgrounds.

@Mediator - "Correct usage has nothing to do with any kind of "prescriptive" bible." - but so many of these so-called rules were indeed introduced by the prescriptivists between the 18th and early 20th centuries. Again if you don't believe me read David Crystal's book. Crystal, as I'm sure you will know, is probably the greatest living authority on the history of the English language as spoken in Britain.

@Hairy Scot - Nor is anybody saying that "If I was ..., I would", is a correct example of the subjunctive. What I'm saying, and I think I differ a little from Porsche here, is that because indicative and subjunctive are almost identical, apart from this one exception, in Britain at least, people are ditching the subjunctive altogether, and using the indicative. JMMBallantyne mentions for example what I would call the present subjunctive - "I recommend that the minister approve the policy paper". Now I know that this form is used in the States, but it's pretty well dead in the UK, except in very formal documents. Swan (Practical English Usage) - "Most subjunctive forms are formal and unusual in British English. In 'that' clauses, British people usually prefer should + infinitive pr ordinary present and past tenses."

The ''were" construction is really all that's left, apart from fixed expressions, so it's not really that's disappearing too, albeit very slowly.

And for all those who look down their noses at MWDEU. I'm afraid you're betraying your own ignorance or perhaps prejudice. MWDEU is one of the most highly regarded books on usage, especially among linguists. It includes plenty of examples from British literature as well as American and is also highly readable. But I admit it is strongly descriptive.

Finally I would like to put my cards on the table, and would be very happy if others were to do the same. I am a 60-something British born and bred native speaker of BrE, RP to be precise, so not exactly at the informal end. I have a reasonably good higher education, teach English to foreigners for a living and blog about English grammar.

I'm getting a little tired of being told my English is not correct by people, one or two of whom I find little qualified to do so. In particular, the comments of one of the most virulent critics on the 'were' side on this post are riddled with grammatically unnatural sentences and unlikely language of a formality rarely heard among British speakers. But I did have a friend from Sri Lanka, for whom I think English was his first language, who spoke in a very similar way.

I would suspect that only PerfectPedant and possibly JMMBallantyne might have some first-hand knowledge of current British English. I'm only making this point because the original question related to the non-use of the subjunctive by a British politician, and I think the position of the subjunctive is very different in British English, to that in American English.

What about a bit of live and let live? You say tomato and I say tomato, etc. By the way I hope you all spotted my heinous breaking of your rule, which was entirely spontaneous. That's just the way it came out. Sorry about the length by the way.

No, I was sincerely interested in what how you interpret the difference between "was" and "were", since for me, there is no difference. I have heard that for some people, "were" indicates a lower degree of likelihood than "was".

It seems that for you, "was" in a present counterfactual is unacceptable. If you see a sentence like"If I was a cad, I would apologize."you interpret it to mean that there is another clause coming. Left as it is, it doesn't work for you.

That's fair enough. However, the fact is that writers use "was" and "were" interchangeably in this context (according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage). Where there is a difference it seems to be one of register. That is, "were" is more formal.

Perfect Pendant"Unfortunately Merriam-Webster tends to reflect only what is common or acceptable in North America"

This is not true. MWDEU quotes equally from NA and UK writers and usage commentators. If there is a difference between NA and UK usage, or between NA and UK usage commentary, they say so.

Brus"English usage and correct (as you say, formal) English are not the same thing."

You seem to be equating "formal" with "correct". But "formal" doesn't mean "correct", it means "formal". And "informal" doesn't mean "incorrect".

Also, I don't see why you think that "was" for "were" comes from North America. Many of the examples given by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage are from authors outside of North America: Carroll, Byron, Thackeray, Farquhar.

"'If I was the Prime Minister. ...' said Ed Miliband, British Labour party leader, today, Sunday 24th September 2011. Is this not how to phrase it if it remains a possibility that he was once Prime Minister, or if he is not sure if he was, or is reluctant to admit it?"

As always, pedants attempt to overcomplicate the language. And the English subjunctive is probably one of those aspects of our language that suffers from more schoolmastering than most.

The argument between "if I was" and "if I were" would seem an attempt to put much more nuance of meaning into Miliband's statement than is really there. Whether "was" or "were", the implication is completely clear: "If I was/were the PM [but I'm not]..."

And while most English verbs have at least one distinctly subjunctive verb form (the uninflected base form of the verb in the third person singular), many of those tricky modal verbs don't (they represent an entirely more cumbersome argument. For example, is "would" a subjunctive form of "will"?). We could open up another argument here about the conditional versus the subjunctive.

Because the presence of subjunctive verb forms in English is so limited, there's a tendency to overengineer the grammar. That Wikipedia link provides what I consider to be a vastly overcomplicated table on the English subjunctive.

A BIG part of our problem is that our approach to English grammar still tends to rely on hammering a square peg into the round hole of a Latin structural model; a model that is not always appropriate or even useful.

According to the Bad Linguistics blog, all three candidates said 'If I was your prime minister', before the last election, which is hardly surprising, as that's probably what the majority of educated British speakers would say. I think I say both as the whim takes me. But then I'm simply one of the swine.

As a separate form, the subjunctive has been disappearing from English for the last 400 years or so, and in BrE this is really its only remaining vestige apart from a few set expressions, such as 'If I were you'. It seems entirely natural to me that 'were' in conditionals will go the same way sooner or later.

As regards foreign learners, in TEFL we tend to use the expression 'the unreal past' to talk about hypothetical conditionals like this, seeing 'were' as an exception rather than the rule (as past subjunctive is otherwise identical to the indicative). And an optional exception at that; although we do warn them to use 'were' in more formal contexts.

Unlike the perfectly named PerfectPedant, I revel in the fact that English is governed by 'Common Usage'; that, through the linguistic choices we make, we can all collectively influence the development of our language. It seems to me to chime perfectly with Anglo-Saxon democratic traditions and legal systems based on custom. As the Roman rhetorician Quintilian put it, ''Custom is the most certain mistress of language."

Perfect Pedant:Which evidence are you referring to? The evidence provided by MWDEU shows that both "was" and "were" are standard English. Lots of people here have stated their opinions, but I haven't seen much evidence that only "were" is standard.

I am not the same Goofy as the Goofy who posted those two links. When I say "evidence" I'm talking about how good writers actually write. Anyone can make a website stating their opinion. But how can any consideration of the situation ignore actual usage?

GoofyEnglish usage and correct (as you say, formal) English are not the same thing. I started my correspondence with this website suspecting that many misuses of correct English by the British come from North America as here mentioned by Perfect Pedant. My suspicions have not been allayed, confirmed rather!It is accepted that there are regional dialects and a wonderful thing it is that this is so, of course. Conversations often feature clumsy English, naturally. But when public figures are making gross errors of standard English through carelessness at times when there is a reason to get it right, it is alarming. Are errors in printed headlines, or legal documents, or school textbooks, acceptable? Speeches by politicians? You get my drift.

@Warsaw WillI too am over 60, educated in Scotland during the 50s and early 60s, with "A" levels in a number of subjects and a degree in English.I try to abide by the rules of language that I was taught during those formative years, but I do not expect everyone to agree with me.What I do expect is that I be free to express an opinion as to what is correct or incorrect without being labelled a pedant.I certainly would not label anyone who disagreed with me as an ignoramus.However when I hear the language of the hip hoppin', jive talkin', text speaking, bunnet oan backward youth of today I often contemplate with despair the future of the English language.The damage done by Noah Webster will pale into insignificance compared to what these numbskulls will do.But then I am a pedantic old curmudgeon. :)

Understanding other Indo-European languages give us an idea of what Proto-Indo-European looked like. But the study of the development of a language, its diachronic study, is a very different thing from its synchronic study: what it looks like at a specific point in time. For instance, "if I were" is historically derived from the Old English past subjunctive. But from a synchronic standpoint, it is not the past subjunctive, at least not in a modern linguistic analysis. Huddleston and Pullum call "were" the irrealis. It's not the past subjunctive because "if it were done" is not the past tense of "if it be done", and because it only occurs with the verb "be" - for all other verbs we use the preterite.

Well to be honest I'm not convinced that the difference is one of formality. MWDEU says nothing about a difference in formality. And the englishclub.com site simply asserts that this is so. In the writing of good writers we find both "was" and "were" forms, sometimes both in the same paragraph.

@jayles - Hi, I confess to knowing next to nothing about the use of subjunctive in early English, but looking around, the subjunctive is usually seen as a form of inflection, some of whose functions were 'taken over by' modals (MWDEU). That's not the same as saying they *are* the subjunctive. Or as one paper (The Subjunctive in Old English and Middle English - Eva Kovacs) puts it (my emphasis):

"*Instead of* the subjunctive mood modal auxiliaries can also be used. Theauxiliary found most frequently in these clauses is shal/sholde, especially in the preterite. Furthermore, may/mighte also occurs mainly in the present tense, just like wil/wolde, which is occasionally found in Late Middle English."

By the time eighteenth century grammarians had discovered the subjunctive it had largely fallen out of use, and as I've already pointed out, more has disappeared since then, such as its use with real time conditionals. What's more, as Goold Brown shows, in A Grammar Of English Grammars, these grammarians disagreed quite significantly as to its composition and use.

However, grammarians today are generally agreed that there are two inflected (or rather, uninflected) forms, present and past (although compounds are also possible - "If he were wanting to ...)", and I firmly believe to start bringing modals into it is an unnecessary complication - especially to the understanding of modals, which are complicated enough already. In these old grammar books, where may, might and should are sometimes referred to as subjunctive, I have never seen these polite forms ("Would you, could you" etc) referred to like this, and if anything they are much more like a conditional mood. But it is generally agreed, that as we don't have separate inflections for these, they don't constitute a mood.

"English does not have an inflective (morphological) conditional mood, except in as much as the modal verbs could, might, should and would may in some contexts be regarded as conditional forms of can, may, shall and will respectively. What is called the English conditional mood (or just the conditional) is formed periphrastically using the modal verb would in combination with the bare infinitive of the main verb." Wikipedia

The modal system in English is highly complex and central to the way we express modality, just as the primary auxiliaries are to the way we express time and aspect. The use of the subjunctive, on the other hand, is marginal in modern English, and in British English, apart from set phrases, is for all intents and purposes limited to this one word - 'were'. And even then its use varies according to context. It might be hanging on in there in hypothetical conditionals, but it's not nearly so strong in constructions with 'I wish' or 'I would rather', and especially not after 'imagine' and 'supposing'.

I much prefer the concept of 'unreal past' that we teach our EFL students, which explains all these uses much more easily, the past being used here for 'distancing', and 'I/he/she were' simply seen as an exception (see quote from The Cambridge Grammar of English Grammar, above), charming and elegant as it may be for some people, and even for me sometimes. I'm not saying that the history of the subjunctive isn't interesting in its own right, but as far as modern language teaching is concerned, I don't think it's worth much more than a quick mention to explain the 'were' exception.

I think where I run into trouble is with an old Catholic school english teaching..."when in doubt, remove everything but the subject and the verb...if they don't agree, it's wrong". So, Bill and Ernie make pies for a living. Bill and Ernie MAKE they don't MAKES even though pies is plural. So, I would never say "I were" (going to the store, having a nap, etc). We were, yes. That's why I always thought "was" should be the form used. Of course, now I've read this discussion and my head has exploded. ;)

@Brus - The subjunctive is not a modal, it is a Mood, which is a very specific grammatical form which I outlined above.It has nothing to do with the normal meaning of mood. Modal is shorthand for modal auxiliary verb, i.e 'can', 'could', 'will', 'would' etc. Hypothetical conditionals use 'would' or 'could' in the result clause for present and future conditions (what is known in the EFL/ESL world as a 2nd Conditional) and a modal perfect -'would have', 'could have' for past conditions (known as 3rd Conditional). You had both of these in your list, plus a 'Mixed Conditional' which mixes past and present. They use unreal past (or subjunctive only) in the if clause.

Here is a list of examples of the subjunctive collected by a fan of the subjunctive, who hates 'was' instead of 'were', so who is hardly likely to favour my view. But at least he and I and every other grammar website In know of, descriptionist or prescriptionist, are in absolute agreement as to what constitutes the subjunctive.

I've just had a look at the English Club page on the subjunctive that Layman mentioned and they have it absolutely spot on - on structure, in the difference between formal and informal usage and in the difference between American and British Usage:

@Layman - Yes. It's used less in British English - for example we don't use it much in the present, in sentences like 'It is essential that she sit the exam this semester.' We prefer a construction with 'should' - 'It is essential that she should sit the exam this semester' (which is not subjunctive, whatever Brus might think) or informally the standard indicative - 'It is essential that she sits the exam this semester'.

Both GrammarGirl and EnglishClub are realiable sites on structure, although I don't always agree with GrammarGirl's conclusions. English Club is one of the best big ESL sites; see my comments above. Other good sites are Learn English at the British Council, Learning English at the BBC, UsingEnglish and esl.about.com and grammar.about.com.

I think one of the the reasons that there is so much disagreement is that some people'sinterpretation of what the subjunctive is, is somewhat loose. Whether you use the subjunctive or not, is of course simply down to personal preference. And there Brus and I will never agree.

"If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law." This to me suggests that I am surprised and doubtful to hear that I was sometime in the past the Prime Minister, find it hard perhaps to believe that such an thing could have been allowed, and if it is true, would want someone to change the law, maybe to prevent such a calamity in the future.(I have, of course, by the way, no particular prime minister in recent history in mind.)"If I were the Prime Minister, ..." has a totally different meaning, that I want the law changed and if I could I would, but I can't so I shan't because I am in fact not the Prime Minister. Which one do you mean?

Re: “If I was” vs. “If I were”Perfect pedant:If I was an ass I am sorry. If I were you I would give up. "If I was.." refers to fact, or possible fact. "If I were..." refers to impossible (closed) condition. I can't be you. But maybe I was an ass.Timbo: you are right, surely no one else is reading this stuff by now.

I think you mistook me for being part of your and Warsaw Will's argument. I was just commenting on the question. What I had stated, adding still, was in response to "once was Prime Minister". So I thought 'still' would belong there.

"If I were still the Prime Minister, I'd lower taxes."

I took it as he currently isn't the Prime Minister, and that if he were, he'd lower taxes.

Unfortunately Merriam-Webster tends to reflect only what is common or acceptable in North America and is often in conflict with sources outside of that area.If it were not for that we would probably have less to discuss.

Merriam–Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is a usage dictionary published by Merriam-Webster, Inc., of Springfield, Massachusetts. It is currently available in a reprint edition (1994), I gather. It is the one which Bob & Bing once sang about, being, like them, Morocco-bound. I reckon it is as American as apple pie.Now, when a writer uses forms of English other than Standard English, does it mean he doesn't know any better? Or is he ascribing to his characters a bit of a regional dialect, perhaps? Should you be "done", as we say in Britain, for some heinous crime, would you be happy to be "sent down" for a lengthy prison sentence by a judge speaking, say, in the language of some of the characters from Huckleberry Finn, one of my favourite novels? Or Walter Scott? As long as he had a copy of Webster's among the other tomes lined up on his bench? In such unhappy circumstances I would prefer that the pronouncement be made by someone dressed in formal robes and speaking Standard English. If he were to fail to use the subjunctive where indicated I would lodge an objection, for sure.

@Perfect Pedant and DAW - except most of it's tosh - modals have nothing to do with the subjunctive - except in German. if you want to compare English to Romance languages, for examples - 'would' and 'could' are equivalent to conditional mood and not subjunctive. (English doesn't have a conditional mood - i.e. a separate inflected form of the verb and German seems to combine subjunctive and conditional in one mood). None of the examples A-E are what is understood to be the subjunctive in English. That they may be in German is neither here nor there.

@Hairy Scot - I wouldn't call you a pedant for using 'were', my objection is only if you insist that my saying 'was' is wrong. My impression is that you no longer live in the UK, but probably in North America (we say back to front, not backward). Language in the UK has become a lot less formal, and what is accepted as standard has changed a lot since the 50s and 60s. - I was taught to say 'to whom should I give this book?', but I would just get funny looks if I said that today.

@New Reader - 'different from / that / to' is the subject of a lot of noise on the Internet, and no doubt another PITE post somewhere. But you really should have checked a dictionary first, laddie (or lassie)! I would indeed say 'different from' with a noun or pronoun. But I speak BrE where 'different to' is also perfectly acceptable, and is probably preferred when the next word is 'that' or 'what'. These examples are from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

'American English is significantly different from British English.'(British English) 'It's very different to what I'm used to.'

And here is H.W. Fowler:

'That different can only be followed by 'from' and not by 'to' is a superstition.'

If I were you?? If someone goes speaking in that manner, it isn't a coplete,neither a correct sentence. But if the individual goes like "if I were the boy,I wouldn't........ . The person's making sense....If I was you-: simply means the person was present/there when the incident or anything he wants to say took place....for example "if I was you, I would have collected the money....this is more correct...THINK TWICE after reading this. Follow me on twitter for more @abexklovac1..

In #1, the kid is clearly not going to bed. It's a command when you say, "It's high time (that) you WENT to bed." ... Think of: I wish you WERE here (when the person is clearly not there).

In #2, "I would rather (falls under #2 - desirable; the implied verb is "like") that you DID not come with me".

In #3, another "desirable", "I wish that bank accounts CAME with interest-free loans attached."

The subjectiv form often looks like the past tense.

The "rather" usage is a set form that goes way back. I had/would rather is an idiom in which the verb (like) is simply implied. Structurally it may be somewhat confusing, but semantically it's perfectly fine and it's been in use for so long that I don't think anyone would ever misunderstand it.

@Warsaw WillMy feeling is that there is a difference between "British English" and "English English", especially the variety spoken in South East England.As a Scot, I would love to be able to say that English is my second language, but alas that is not the case.At the risk of starting a civil war, I would note that there are those who maintain that the Scots tend to be more grammatically correct than the English.If that is a fact then it is almost certainly due to those hard-assed old pedants who beat the language into us with the help of the major product of Lochgelly!

"The verb 'to be' is, I think, the only verb in English that retains a subjunctive, and that subjunctive is 'were' not 'was'."

This is absolutely not true. Every verb in Engish has a subjunctive tense. The verb "to be" just happens to be the only one whose subjunctive form is irregular.

@Willy Wonka and Goofy, regarding:

"If I lived in Paris, I would visit the Eiffel Tower."

Of course this is correct. This isn't a prescriptive vs. descriptive issue. Willy, what you fail to recognize is that the subjunctive IS being used here. The prescriptively correct past subjunctive of "lived" is "lived".

What I think we have here is a general misunderstanding of the full breadth of application of the subjunctive. for all verbs, there are present, past, future, negative, etc. forms of the subjunctive, each with their own rules of construction and application. The subjunctive is not only limited to counterfactual assertions, either. For a quick review, check out the English section of this Wikipedia entry:

I took Latin in high school (don't ask me why, I have forgotten).My lasting memory is of one classics master with a sense of humour telling a bunch of second year students, "In Latin a sentence is a collection of nouns adverbs, and adjectives, made logical by a verb at the end."In later life I found that description can also be applied to the German.English has been greatly influenced by both Latinate and Germanic (almost typed Germinate) languages so perhaps there is more than one source of square holes.

"A Student's Introduction to English Grammar" by Huddleston and Pullum describes three uses for the past tense:

1 past time: I promised to be back for lunch.

2 modal remoteness: I wish they lived nearby. If he loved her, he'd change his job.This has traditionally been called the "subjunctive". It covers cases where the event is modally remote, either it's counterfactual, or its fulfillment is a remote possibility. Presumably "It is time you went to bed" falls here as well.

the way to get it right is to remember that subjunctive is for 'hypothetical' situations - not factual - and BOTH clauses are subjunctive. otherwise BOTH are indicative (factual). This is called 'sequence of tenses' by some.

So:

1. If I was rude, I apologize. (Maybe I was rude, and if I was, then I apologise.)2. If I were rude, I apologize. (Plain wrong. This means it would be rude to apologise, and I do apologise because I was rude, but I wasn't, maybe - daft!) 'If I was rude I apologise' - allows the possibility that maybe I was, so I do. 'If I were rude I would ... " means I won't because it would be rude to do so. You have mixed the moods so have not followed the sequence of tenses rule.3. If I was rude, I would apologize. Suggests maybe I was rude (indicative) but begs the question what second, further condition must first be satisfied before I apologise. If I was rude, I would apologize if only I were a gentleman (subjunctive suggests I do not consider myself a gentleman). 4. If I were rude, I would apologize. This suggests it would be rude to apologise, but I am not rude so I shall not apologise.5. If I I was rude, I would have apologized. Suggests maybe I was rude, but something else prevented me apologising. Without that further information (introduced, I suggest, by "but" after "apologised", it makes no sense.6. If I were rude, I would have apologized. This makes sense: someone else might think I should have apologised, but I think it is rude to apologise, so I didn't.7. If I had been rude, I would have apologized. I didn't apologise because I wasn't (in my view) rude.

Does 'was' refer to the past, and 'were' to a hypothetical situation? Yes.P.s. Hairy wrote previously:

You quote Hairy: "I can't believe that no one has mentioned the fact that the subjunctive is only a mood. It is a matter of whether one would like to sound sophisticated or not.If you want to sound classy, you say "if I were". " This is nonsense. The subjunctive mood is employed to make it clear that you are talking of hypothetical possibilities. It is like a third dimension. Is the indicative "only" a mood? If we are not allowed moods, then we cannot use verbs, which must be indicative, subjunctive, or imperative (for orders). Without verbs we cannot make sentences. Must we avoid sentences? Of course not! That is why I dismiss out of hand the idea of 'only a mood'. A bit like a car mechanic saying "it's only an engine". 'Classy' has nothing to do with it, unless inverted snobbery compels you to avoid using the subjunctive in case someone realises or thinks you are educated. (In England some people have a problem with 'educated' and 'classy'.)

You ask for advice: ", i have to make a speech topic about wearing school uniform or not what recomendation they would make?.. if i were prime menister using modals, conditional, passive voice, embedded question and reported speech."

Well, let's try! "If I were prime minister" is a (closed) conditional clause, using a subjunctive verb, 'closed' because you are talking about a situation which is hypothetical, that is, you are not prime minister but if you were, this is what you would have done.

Conditional (open) clause is where it is possible: "If I am right ..." for example, because maybe you are right, and on condition that you are right, then you will do this or that ...

Passive voice is where you talk about what was done to the subject of the sentence: "I was appointed PM" (passive) was done to me, but "I became PM" is active because I did it. The cat sat on the mat is active but the cat was asked to get off the mat is passive. The cat sat (active) but was asked (passive).

Modals? That is another term for mood, so means whether the verb is indicative (fact) or subjunctive (hypothetical), so let us try "If the headmaster (or indeed headmistress) lets us wear what we like on Fridays then ..." that is indicative because it shows you think this is a real possibility. Change this to "If the headmaster (or indeed headmistress) were to let us wear what we like on Fridays then ..." That is subjunctive, because it says you think it won't happen.

"Embedded" question is a puzzle to me, but I think it is what I call an indirect question. A direct question you quote the question: "are you mad?" but indirect you tell us about the question someone asked, like this: "He asked him if he was mad". This is one of the three kinds of reported (or indirect ) speech:

indirect question "He asked him if he was crazy." (Direct: Are you crazy?" - with question mark). Indirect command: "He asked him to open the door". (Direct command: "Open the door." Indirect statement: "He said it was raining". (Direct statement: "It's raining").

@JJMB, "Tense" is often used to represent any combination of tense, aspect, and mood. Furthermore, there is a past, present, and future subjunctive. Still, I'll be happy to cede the point, athough this really isn't relevant to the discussion.

Let me restate as follows:

...Nearly every verb in Engish has a subjunctive construction. The verb "to be" just happens to be perhaps the only one whose subjunctive form is irregular...

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure whether you may agree with my points or not. Regarding:

"...And while most English verbs have at least one distinctly subjunctive verb form (the uninflected base form of the verb in the third person singular..."

That is consistent with my very point. "distinctly subjunctive" and "subjunctive" are not the same thing. Most correct uses of the subjunctive are not distinctly different from the corresponding non-subjunctive form. That doesn't mean that the subjunctive doesn't exist. It is the mood that determines its, er, "subjunctivity".

I agree, defective modals complicate things even further, but I'm not sure whether their defectiveness necessarily breaks from the normal subjunctive paradigm. Even if it does in some cases, so what?

Regarding the complexity of the Wikipedia link, here we do disagree. I think the link provides a very simple, yet relatively complete description of the subjunctive. It's also consistent with every English grammar book that I have ever seen.

Let me make yet another suggestion. Maybe "if I was you..." doesn't really represent the death of the subjunctive. It merely represents the death of a particular construction of the subjunctive. If it has become acceptable (and I'm not saying it hast or hasn't), then "was" simply replaces "were" as the subjunctive form. It wouldn't be the first time in history that a distinct subjunctive form became obsolete.

For what it's worth, I still use it, my young children do, and if it goes away, I'll be sad to see it go.

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the fact that the subjunctive is only a mood. It is a matter of whether one would like to sound sophisticated or not. If you want to sound classy, you say "if I were", but if you want to sound artless, you say "if I was". It's as simple as that! It's like choosing between the words "career" and "vocation".

@Mediator - The most annoying thing about pedants is that they are usually correct. - Only if you believe in some kind of prescriptivist bible. I don't. I side with those linguists who think that the measure of what is correct is what is 'well-formed': what is acceptable to the majority of educated speakers.

- My comment (about the UK) 'was well wide of the mark' - Do you have evidence to support that?

- "If I was ...... I would" is technically incorrect. - It depends on who you ask and your definition of correctness (as above). These example sentences are from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary entry on 'if':

"If I was in charge, I'd do things differently." "(rather formal) If I were in charge…"

The position of every UK-published TEFL book I've ever worked with is the same. The difference is not one so much one of correctness, but rather of formality. As I said I use both, depending on the situation and context.

According to the MWDEU, this use of 'was' alongside 'were' has been common since the 17th century - 'The success that the indicative form has had since has probably been abetted by the near invisibility of the subjunctive'. They include plenty of examples of unreal conditionals with 'was', by, amongst others: Byron, Robert Frost, Thackeray and Lewis Carrol (see Goofy's link).

Lastly, according to Michael Swan (Practical English Usage), the belief that only the 'were' usage is correct is much more prevalent in the US than in the UK. My comments are, of course, purely from a BrE perspective.

Thanks, Warsaw Will. Jolly kind of yourself and Brus to take time to answer my questions. This is a really interesting topic though I'll admit to finding it slightly tricky to get the head around; however, persistence usually pays off in the end. Much obliged, people.

@Warsaw WillLike you I was expressing an opinion. Do you have evidence to back up yours?Anyone who was educated in a British senior secondary school would definitely disagree with you.Correct use of the language has nothing to do with any kind of "prescriptivist bible'.If you wish to use it incorrectly then that is your choice.You can also wear your cap backwards if you wish.

@Brus - Thanks for visiting my website. I don't think I understand your first point. I clearly said that 'was' is indicative, but that 'were' for 1st and 3rd persons singular is subjunctive (all other past subjunctive forms are the same as indicative).

Unreal past - 'If I were prime minister, I would ...' - were for 1st and 3rd person singular here is usually accepted as being subjunctive (although I think the authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language disagree - calling it irrealis). While 'If I was prime minister, I would ... 'is thought of as indicative, but both are talking about a hypothetical condition - which is why we call it the unreal past.

I talked about 'were to' in a different section. - 'were to' is a compound subjunctive form which is usually thought to be more tentative ('were to have been' is just another form of 'were to'). 'If I were to offer you ... ', is more tentative than 'If I offered you ...'. Go to Wikipedia and scroll down to Compound forms:

I don't think I said that 'should' does the job of the subjunctive, I said that it was the British preference, because we prefer to avoid the subjunctive (see English Club, or any EFL website). You say - 'He recommends (that) the tablets should be taken after meals.' is wrong. But that is standard in British English, whereas 'He recommends (that) the tablets be taken after meals' is more standard in American English. Neither is more right nor wrong than the other. I think in your interpretations you are being far too literal. In its basic meaning 'should' is more or less interchangeable with 'ought to', but 'ought to' would not work in those examples.

Modals can have several different meanings and functions. Just look at how many functions 'would' has:

The past of will - This was the woman who would become his wifeIn conditionals - If he came I would be very happyTo talk about someone's behaviour or habits - Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?To talk about past habit - I used to live buy the seaside and every day I would go for a swim in the sea.To complain about somebody's behaviour - I wish he would help more with the housework

And how can a modal verb be a main verb? It has no tense; it needs a main verb (aka lexical verb) in the bare infinitive to go with it. That's why it's called an auxiliary or helping verb. I'm not quite sure what you're saying about pouvoir and devoir. That they are not modal verbs but main verbs? They are definitely modal verbs - ''Pouvoir, devoir sont des auxiliaires modaux" (Le Robert Micro). In fact we probably got the expression modal auxiliary from French. The only difference between English and French is that English modals have no inflections. But they can be used in much the same way - Je dois partir - I must go - Elle ne peut (pas) venir avec nous - She can't come with us.

There are two types of auxiliary verb - the primary auxiliaries used to form tenses, and modals to add modality. The exceptions are future tenses which are formed with the modal verb 'will'.

There are also a couple of semi-modals - need and dare -they can be used as standard verbs with a basic auxiliary - he doesn't need to do it - or as a modal - he needn't do it.

As for being 'my modals', they are just the same as any grammatical definition of modal verb in English. Please visit any grammar website - for example the University of Wisconsin Platteville (not ESL) has a very good glossary here, check out primary and modal auxiliaries:

I never said anything about modals being a mood, keep up! - As you say, English has three moods: indicative, subjunctive and imperative. But certain modals, 'would' and 'could', do a very similar job to the conditional mood in French and Spanish. And what do you mean 'over your teaching career there were no modals'? - You never said 'can', 'could' etc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verbhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/englis...

The grammatical definition for modals and explanations of the subjunctive are no different for ESL than they are for native speakers studying grammar at American universities. These are standard grammatical terms. And the subjunctive in English is very limited. What I provided you with wasn't 'extra', it was the basics. If we can't agree on basic definitions, the rest is pretty meaningless. And if you don't accept what all the references I've given you say, descriptionist and prescriptivist alike, there's not a lot more I can say.

If I was ... I would ... has one indicative verb (was: factual, perhaps) and one subjunctive (were: non-factual, I shall not apologise...) so the simple rule of sequence of tenses: both clauses need to be subjunctive for a closed or non-factual, or both need to be indicative for an open condition, one which may still be fulfilled. When you say "If I was ...I would, it begs another subordinate clause: "If I was ..., I would ...if ...).

This is the same problem as yesterday's one from Mr Tony Blair, former prime minister of Britain, who is quoted as saying "If I was interested in money, I could make much more", which begs the question, in more than one way, leaving us wondering how he could make much more, and when it might have been that he was interested in money, and why not any more. But he is acknowledged as a great orator who does not need any verbs in his sentences, and indeed does not always use them at all, and speaks in the dialect of his intended listeners, which is not necessarily standard English, so we must not use him as a model.

Correction - I should have said modals have no person or number - they can occasionally express tense, or at least time.

@Jasper - the sentence I quoted was said by all three candidates before the British general election, at which time none of them were prime minister. And that's not a subjunctive were, but a plural were after none, another great arguing point.

There seem to be lots of sites and sources which show "If I were........" as being correct.Have yet to find one that states that "If I was....." is in fact correct, although most do concede that it is acceptable in an informal or conversational context.

"If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize."This means that there is a possibility, which I am not yet quite prepared to admit, that I was a perfect cad sometime in the past. I would apologise, but what are we waiting for? We now need to know on what condition, as you have not said "I shall/will apologise, but "would apologise", so you need to go on, saying "if ..." as perhaps "if you were to convince me (that I was a perfect cad). Complete sentence then: "If I was a perfect cad, I would apologise if you were to convince me that I was." This means you don'y think you will be convinced. If you think you will be, then "If I was a perfect cad I shall apologise if you convince me that I was."

Who wrote this nonsense in the American Heritage Book of English Usage you quote? It is made up as he goes along by the writer, I suggest. It is obvious that "if I was" is incorrect English, and is what we might call demotic, or an attempt by the speaker to seem demotic to avoid being accused of being elitist, that is, educated. Or a clumsy, unprepared and wholly excusable minor gaffe in casual speech in a casual situation. None of these is what one wants of a hopeful politician in a formal situation, I argue.

@goofyIf I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law.If I were the Prime Minister, I would change the law.Don't both of these sentences refer to unreal present events? If I can't remember if I was Prime Minister, I would be talking about a past event. I might say:If I had been the Prime Minister, I would have changed the law.orI can't remember if I was the Prime Minister.

It’s common sense that only the current Prime Minister would have the power to change the law, so the clause “if I was the Prime Minister” refers to the present, since there is no logical connection between being the former Prime Minister and changing the law if you are saying that you were Prime Minister before. But who is the Prime Minister is a fact, in this context, not the speaker, which is true without any subjective judgment, making “if I was the Prime Minister” is a counterfactual supposition. So in this context, “if I was the Prime Minister” and “if I were the Prime Minister” mean basically the same thing.

@BrusIf I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law." This to me suggests that I am surprised and doubtful to hear that I was sometime in the past the Prime Minister, find it hard perhaps to believe that such an thing could have been allowed, and if it is true, would want someone to change the law, maybe to prevent such a calamity in the future.The logic doesn’t stand. You are linking the assumption of being the Prime Minister in the past to the change of law which would be made to happen in the future. Who would the speaker be talking to? It’s hard and complicated to find such a context that would fit in here.

(I have, of course, by the way, no particular prime minister in recent history in mind.)"If I were the Prime Minister, ..." has a totally different meaning, that I want the law changed and if I could I would, but I can't so I shan't because I am in fact not the Prime Minister. Which one do you mean?@goofyYour sentence "If I was a hopeless cad, I apologize" refers to a past event, so it's not the same context as my examples.Would you ever use "if I was" in exactly the same context as "if I were"? Would you say this:"If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize.""If I was a hopeless cad” could refer to a past event too, even in "If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize". The reason behind is that whether or not you are a hopeless cad depends on the criteria of judgment of the person you are speaking to, involving subjective factor. This is not falling in the same category as being the Prime Minister.

If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law." This to me suggests that I am surprised and doubtful to hear that I was sometime in the past the Prime Minister, find it hard perhaps to believe that such an thing could have been allowed, and if it is true, would want someone to change the law, maybe to prevent such a calamity in the future.The logic doesn’t stand. You are linking the assumption of being the Prime Minister in the past to the change of law which would be made to happen in the future. Who would the speaker be talking to? It’s hard and complicated to find such a context that would fit in here.

No it isn't. It is easy and simple: I am informed (by anyone at all) that this national misfortune has occurred, and I as the speaker am declaring that it should not have been allowed (if indeed it was - the indicative mood of the verb "was" rather than "were" means it is treated by me as an open condition, which is to say that I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember). If I wished to indicate disbelief in such a preposterous assertion I would use a closed conditional clause, denoted by the subjunctive form of the verb: "were".

If I am ... means perhaps I am (present tense, open, indicative, conditional clause)If I was ... means perhaps I was (past tense, open, indicative, conditional clause)If I do ... means perhaps I shall do (future, open, indicative...If I were ... means I am not (present, closed, subjunctive ...)If I were to have been ... means I was not (past, closed, subjunctive ...)If I were to do ... means I shall not do(future, closed, subjunctive ...)

Piece of cake, really. Twelve year old children learning Latin get a couple of lessons to master all this and cope perfectly well, including the Latin forms of the verbs. The logic stands then that I could assert to the world at large that if indeed I was PM, which I accept as a possibility, then I would wish whoever can do so to get the law changed. Saying "I would change the law" when I have not the power to do so means that I am declaring that I wish someone would change the law, and that I would counsel, and indeed advocate this course of action. It does not suggest that I must necessarily play a part in this legislative tinkering, merely that I recommend it.

@sundy - of course you're right, which is why, in EFL, we refer to this as the Unreal past. We only have to compare it with any other verb - 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, as in the cad example (which seems to be very popular in the States).

@Brus - All three candidates for prime minister at the last election, in other words the leaders of the three main UK parties, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. I suppose that 'none of them had been prime minister' is your little joke because they said 'was' instead of 'were'.

I'm afraid I misunderstood your meaning of 'main verb', as this is an expression which is usually used to denote the lexical verb as opposed to the auxiliary. So in 'I don't want to swim' - the main verb (in the usual meaning of the term) is of course 'want', but not to differentiate it from 'to swim', which is its complement, but from its auxiliary 'don't'. In 'I don't swim' swim is the main verb. I suggest you google 'main verb' and you'll see what I mean.

In your second last paragraph, you're nearly there. But the primary auxiliaries - do, be, have, (which aren't modals) are mainly used for tense and voice, whereas the modal auxiliaries are mainly used for modality. The exception being future tenses which use the modal will, sometimes in combination with the primary auxiliaries do and have - I will be seeing him tomorrow - I will have finished it by Friday.

Ça va, Houston, il n'y a aucune problème. A Varosovie non plus. I meant English modals weren't inflected, I didn't say French ones weren't, obviously they are. This is a site about the English language, so I assume when I say modal or subjunctive without further qualification, people will understand I'm talking about modals or the subjunctive in English.

'That was why we didn't have any need to make life hard for ourselves by talking of modals.' - but that's what every English grammar book under the sun calls them. And the only reason I started talking about modals was because you suggested, insisted even, that 'BOTH clauses are subjunctive' in hypothetical conditionals (your capitals). But I'm afraid this is tosh - 'If he were a bit less shifty, I would trust him more.' - 'If he had worked harder at school, he could have got into university.' - The result clause of a hypothetical conditional uses verbs with the modal auxiliaries 'would, would have, could, could have' etc. This is not the subjunctive. That's why I started talking about modals.

I'm afraid that one of the problems I find with this discussion is that you use terms your own way, not as they are generally understood in English grammar. When you talk of the subjunctive, I suspect you are thinking that the English equivalent of a French, Spanish or German sentence in the subjunctive is somehow subjunctive in English. But the subjunctive is not a feeling, it is a specific grammatical form, and its use in each of these languages is different from in English. - Il faut que je sache.- I need to know - Nous cherchons quelqu'un qui puisse commencer immédiatement - We're looking for somebody who can start immediately - Both sentences use the subjunctive in French, but neither do in English.

Okay W Will, I go along with what you say. I dispute none of your latest message. It's possibly a bit like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prof Dawkins (a well-known scientist and atheist in the UK) arguing different views about religion: they actually both hold exactly the same thinking if only they knew it, but are divided by the way in which the same words they both use have different meanings in each one's head. In other words we have been arguing over terminology. I have learned much from this conversation and appreciate it. Best wishes to you and all the denizens of those expat bars in Warsaw of whom you speak so warmly elsewhere. (My computer spellcheck doesn't like 'expat' but I don't pay attention to such 'authorities'. I see it doesn't like 'spellcheck' either!).

I was quoting Jasper: "I'd simply add the word still:"If I were still the Prime Minister, ..."

and Warsaw Will:"All three candidates for prime minister at the last election, in other words the leaders of the three main UK parties, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg."

Historical point: Gordon Brown was the prime minister and leader of the Labour party and candidate for the job of staying in office, and was still the prime minister until the coalition came into being, ending the candidate and prime minister bits of that, and then the leader bit when he resigned from that position, allowing the election of Miliband. Worth mentioning all that to get the understanding of the language right:

Linguistic point: You can't make a conditional, Jasper, by inserting "still". Brown still was prime minister, so no "if "about it, and the others never had been, so could not use "still prime minister".

That's what I meant, W Will.

Now that Brown is not prime minister any more he can say "if I were still prime minister", followed by another subjunctive clause telling us what he would do, for instance. The others can't. because Cameron still is, and Clegg never was.

@Warsaw Will - of course you're right, which is why, in EFL, we refer to this as the Unreal past. We only have to compare it with any other verb - 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, as in the cad example (which seems to be very popular in the States).

The context is very important in understanding the subjunctive sentences.

'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, …

This may be not true depending on various context. First, this can be about the past as in this context:

You held a big party at your big home with dozens of people attending, where you were very busy all over the place, even without paying attention to your girl friend. Now the next day after the party, one of your best friends tells you that he saw your another friend was trying to impress your girl friend by chatting with her in a small room on the second floor. You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this which is seen as inappropriate at your party. But this is what your best friend is telling you, so you might think that your best friend was just mistaking another girl for your girl friend. You might say to your friend:

You might have mistaken another girl for my girl friend, but 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' – “I’d “means the future here while 'If he acted like that at my party’ refers to the past, so the whole sense implies that if “he acted like that at my party” is to be proven, when I see him I would throw him out. Please note that “out” here has changed not to mean “my party”, instead, the surrounding where you would meet him when you throw him.

So we have to look at the context (scenario) in interpreting subjunctive sentences. Without doing this it would let the argument keep going and going forever.

@ Brus - No it isn't. It is easy and simple: I am informed (by anyone at all) that this national misfortune has occurred, and I as the speaker am declaring that it should not have been allowed (if indeed it was - the indicative mood of the verb "was" rather than "were" means it is treated by me as an open condition, which is to say that I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember). If I wished to indicate disbelief in such a preposterous assertion I would use a closed conditional clause, denoted by the subjunctive form of the verb: "were".

I would be very nervous if you say that “I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember”. Or if I am serious enough, I may call the police to take you to hospital for an overall medical checkup. You can’t forget if you were once the prime minister some time ago unless there is a medical problem. So this is not an usual context.

You say you would be very nervous if I were to say that “I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember”. You are evidently of a very delicate disposition. A past prime minister of Britain in the last fifty years did indeed develop dementia, in more lucid moments telling other people "I used to be prime minister, you know". Those to whom he confided this information did not report feeling nervous because of it. Nor did they call the police to take him to hospital for an overall medical checkup, as there was no need for one and in Britain the police are the wrong agency for this. As you point out you can’t forget if you were once the prime minister some time ago unless there is a medical problem, so this is not an usual context. Well, Sundy, it may not be usual for someone to develop dementia but it happens. Besides all that, the point under discussion is a linguistic one.On another linguistic point, what does this mean: "You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this ... "? You wrote it. No need to call the police, but it scores poor marks for English, I feel.

The main problem here is that English has evolved from a largely synthetic language (one in which grammatical function is marked by verb form or inflections) to a largely analytical language (where word order, modals, and prepositions mark syntactical, grammatical, and semantic functions). The "irrealis were" is not even considered by modern linguists as a form of the "subjunctive" at all, and it is a relic of old English that quite simply no longer serves any grammatical purpose. The syntactical, grammatical and semantic functions that used to be marked by morphology (changes in verb form or inflections) are now marked by in other ways, so the distinction between the "irrealis were" and "was" is no longer needed. The language hasn't lost anything, it is just marking or expressing it in a different way. We don't need the "were" in most "irrelis were" constructions because the semantics of the construction is made plain by words such as "if" or "wish". It is hilarious that people attempt to work out whether they should use "were" by first working out whether the construction is counterfactual, etc. Proof that the "were" isn't what makes the semantics plain.

And "idiolect" is certainly not a neologism. It is a very common word in grammar or linguistics. And it is amusing how some people claim that "correct usage" is seen as pedantic. Not at all. Pedantic usage is what is seen as pedantic ;-)

Insisting on the "irrealis were" as "correct usage" is obviously pedantic and rather odd. It only exists in the one construction, (where a "was" is changed to a "were") and with no other verbs and in no other constructions, proof in itself that it no longer needed.

And, ironically, the "irrealis were" or "subjunctive" as so many call it is much more common in AmE than in BrE. I seems to only be in the US where it is ever taught these days and only in the US where many people, other than grammar freaks, care, or even know about it.

Does this mean "I" can't remember I was prime minister? No, it just means that I am not the prime minister, but I used to be.

@ Brus - Well, Sundy, it may not be usual for someone to develop dementia but it happens. Besides all that, the point under discussion is a linguistic one.

Putting the context in the language would make more sense than to discuss purely linguistic instances. I am emphasizing "purely" here.

Though I would have to agree that your interpretation works in your proposed context, but that's not an usual context. Why did some expressions in a language die out? One of the reasons is that there is a lack of contexts in life to fit in.

Trust me, "if I was you" will become more common as it means the same thing as "if I were you" since by no way, no mean, the assumption of "I am you" would become true.

@ Brus -On another linguistic point, what does this mean: "You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this ... "? You wrote it. No need to call the police, but it scores poor marks for English, I feel.

You could give me poor marks of English, but not poor marks of language and how a language works.

I wanted to edit my post after submission, but I couldn't. I may have to change it to "you kind of trust your girl friend that she wouldn’t do this ..."

@sundy - OK, I follow your example now, but I think you're stretching it a bit far. In fact what I'd say in that context is something like: "If he really did act like that, I'd throw him out if he came again."

However, I've realised that there is another possible interpretation of "If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out" and that is where we use would for repeated actions in the past, for example - "I used to live near my work and would walk to work every day"

So it would be possible to interpret "If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out" as "Whenever he acted like that, I used to throw him out". But as you say, context would usually help you.

So here's another one:

"If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house" - can you put a different interpretation on that?

My point, though, is that Unreal past (subjunctive, for those who prefer it) is exactly the same as Real Past for all verbs except one, and for only two persons of that one verb, 1st and 3rd singular of 'be'. I can seen no logical reason why a different form is thought necessary for those two persons of one verb when we have absolutely no confusion in all other cases. It might sound more refined, but that's about all.

You go on the street and ask the ordinary people how they would feel if somebody says he /she can’t remember if he/she was the prime minister before. People would say: “it’s a bit wired. I would never forget if I was once the prime minister.” So when you say to, again, ordinary people that “if I was the prime minister,..” you would be taken as to mean an imaginary situation of being the prime minister.

Demotic usage based on their contexts determines the life of a language, eventually, not the contexts thought of by linguists in pure linguistics.

@BrusI have agreed with you all along. It's just that we couldn't convince Goofy.The use of 'If I was ...." instead of "If I were" is something that makes me cringe.If I were you I would do as I have done and give up on Goofy.I have a suspicion that we were being trolled.

@ Warsaw Will - "If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house" - can you put a different interpretation on that?

Yes. Assume this context:

You were so tired and went to bed last night before the lottery winning numbers showed on TV. In the morning after you get out of bed, you hold your lottery ticket in hand, ticking it in front of your wife, saying:

"If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house."

You are referring to the real past. But since your wife doesn't know you didn't have a chance to check the number as usual, she interprets "if I won the lottery" as to refer to the present, hence meaning an imaginary situation.

She then might say to you : "Don't keep daydreaming."

You further explain: "I didn't have a chance to check the number as I went to bed earlier last night. I still have a chance to win." So now she understands that "if won the lottery" means a real condition.